There *seems* to be an assumption that risk taking is inherent... but I'm not convinced "risk taking" is the issue.
It isn't, nor is there such an assumption. You're confusing the idea that every individual has a set risk tolerance with an inherent desire to take risks. Risks are faced when there's a benefit to be gained - seeing the pretty fishies, getting to work on time, etc. Everyone has a risk level they won't exceed, but when they see external factors lowering risk, they reduce their risk avoidance behaviors, which allows them to maximize the benefit attached to the risk, while those external factors "take up the slack" so they don't need to exceed their tolerance. So, with ABS, you can get home from work a little sooner, without facing what your internal risk assessment calculus sees as unacceptable risk.
There's nothing sinister, immoral, or self-destructive about risk compensation. It's a simple process of optimization and budgeting, no different than choosing a more expensive restaurant for dinner because someone gave you the theater tickets for half price.
I don't believe that most people are even aware of the inherent risks involved in their behaviors...
People perceive a level of risk in almost everthing they do. They may perceive the risk to be trivial, and their perception may or may not be accurate.
It wasn't that I was trying to be 'risky'... I went into 4WD to AVOID risk... unfortunately, the risk avoidance behavior actually created the exact negative situtaion I was trying to avoid in the first place... with no backup option available. (One could reasonably argue that the attempt to avoid the negative situation ended up creating a worse situation than if I had NOT tried to moderate the risk)...
It's not a matter of trying to be risky. Having 4WD, in your view, reduced the risk of getting stuck. If you knew that it increased the risk, by allowing you to go to the limit of 4WD and then be REALLY stuck, you would have, in your own words, had a backup (like installing a winch) and thus engaged in further risk mitigating behavior than you did. Thus, this is an example of risk compensation. Going in in 2WD and coming out in 4WD is also a risk avoidance behavior, which you would have done if you'd known the actual level of risk, in which case your perceived level of risk would be higher than it was.
The introduction of the concept of 'risky behavior' is a misleading modifier to the problem.
You're confusing behavior with thoughts and intentions. A behavior may be inherently risky regardless of your intentions, or your awareness that it is risky.
but, my understanding (limited as it is)... is that actual risk takers are less a risk to themselves than a non-risk takers simply because they are more inclined to be situationally aware of the risks inherent to what they do...
That can be true, but it's a classic example of risk compensation at work. The driver who stays under the speed limit perceives his risk to be lower, and compensates by being less alert. The speeder is more aware of his risk, and thus pays more attention. Both are adjusting their behavior to maximize benefit while keeping risk within their tolerance.